Is Islam really the sams religion as Judaism ans Christianity?

[basics]

Absolutely not. Being created in god's image doesn't mean we'd have all of its traits. There is no logic in what you're suggesting. You also present that as an argument in support of Jesus being same as God while in reality its a completely irrelevant point. You have all the need to muddy the waters as you're unable to present a remotely sensible, even Biblicaly accurate, account of what we're talking about. If your position had merit you wouldn't devote half your post to telling me I'm going to hell. Preaching doesn't have to be dependent on utterly ignorant arguments. What a shameful conduct that likely makes Jesus weep.

PointOfViewGun,

What made Jesus weep was His despair at the lack of faith He found. John1:45, Luke 13:34 and Hebrews 5:7. So let's look at the situation you make for yourself. If Jesus and Mohammed are both prophets of God and a prophet truly from God cannot lie, even be mistaken, one of them has to be a false prophet. Jesus has four thousand odd years of history behind Him whilst Mohammed until his claim had what, nothing. Today Jesus has six thousand years of history behind Him and Mohammed has what, a little under two thousand years and not a drop of a hint about him before that. Did Mohammed ever say that many false prophets would spring up in his day, yet Jesus said that from before eternity. In Christ His people are brought to Him by love yet in Islam people are brought to it by subjection with the sword. Jesus offers eternal life whereas Mohammed offers nothing relying on Allah to give mercy once dead. The sad thing is a dead sinner cannot enter heaven. Sin has to be paid for before that can happen and only Jesus Christ offers that, how? By being God in the flesh He offered Himself up for the sins of all them that the Father predestined to be His. Only God could do that. All mohammed ever offers is perhaps, note perhaps, mercy. Jesus is the Surety whereas Mohammed is not meaning that Mohammed is a false prophet. What could be more logical but then not for you?

[PointOfViewGun]

PointOfViewGun,

What made Jesus weep was His despair at the lack of faith He found. John1:45, Luke 13:34 and Hebrews 5:7. So let's look at the situation you make for yourself. If Jesus and Mohammed are both prophets of God and a prophet truly from God cannot lie, even be mistaken, one of them has to be a false prophet. Jesus has four thousand odd years of history behind Him whilst Mohammed until his claim had what, nothing. Today Jesus has six thousand years of history behind Him and Mohammed has what, a little under two thousand years and not a drop of a hint about him before that. Did Mohammed ever say that many false prophets would spring up in his day, yet Jesus said that from before eternity. In Christ His people are brought to Him by love yet in Islam people are brought to it by subjection with the sword. Jesus offers eternal life whereas Mohammed offers nothing relying on Allah to give mercy once dead. The sad thing is a dead sinner cannot enter heaven. Sin has to be paid for before that can happen and only Jesus Christ offers that, how? By being God in the flesh He offered Himself up for the sins of all them that the Father predestined to be His. Only God could do that. All mohammed ever offers is perhaps, note perhaps, mercy. Jesus is the Surety whereas Mohammed is not meaning that Mohammed is a false prophet. What could be more logical but then not for you?

Your assertion that one of them has to be a false prophet would only be true if you take the Bible to be 100% accurate. You also imply that Jesus have been talked about for four thousand years before he was born. The only way for you to support that idea is to interpret, not state, a number of Old Testament verses where you think it was Jesus that was referred to. Most of what you say there has no relevance to what you're trying to claim. You make up arbitrary rules yourself and then claim victory over application of those rules. That's not just blasphemous for Islam but blasphemous for Christianity as well. That alone shows how you're trying to cling to points to create a case for yourself. Clearly, your own position is unable to stand on its own feet. It's also rather amusing that you say sin has to be paid for before entering heave, sin that your own position creates for itself. It's truly a self-fulfilling prophecy. All in all, the initial fact remains: if Jesus was god he made no sacrifice given that he would total power over it. There was no sacrifice.

[Common Soldier]

Your assertion that one of them has to be a false prophet would only be true if you take the Bible to be 100% accurate.

Actually you would only need ro assume the Bible is half accurate is assert Muhammad is a false prophet. All the Gospels and the Epistles assert Jesus was.crucified which the Koran denies. One or the other is correct. Since Jews, Christians, ancient pagans, and even modern atheist agree Jesus was crucified, that leaves only Muhammad claiming otherwise plus the Gospels.are much, much, much closer in time and so in a much, much., much better position to know than Muhammad. If Muhammad is wrong on such a fundamental point, he cannot be a true prophet.

Even with Muhammad being wrong on the crucifixion, ths Quran being wrong in Surah 9:30 claiming the "Jews say Ezra is the Son of God", and the Quran not understanding what Christians believe about the Trinity and thinking thr Trinity is God, Jesus, and Mary, instead od God Jesus Holy Ghost, rules out Muhammad as a genuine prophet. The Quran cannot be very words of God as Muhammad claimed, since God is all knowing, and he wouldn't make such a mistake. This undeniably makes Muhammad a false prophet, and we don't even need thr Bible to be accurate to say that.

You also imply that Jesus have been talked about for four thousand years before he was born. The only way for you to support that idea is to interpret, not state, a number of Old Testament verses where you think it was Jesus that was referred to.

Islam in the Quran does even worse, it asserts, without even providing the verss, that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible. Even many Jews agree that many of the verses in the Old Testament (Tanakh) talk about the Christ (messiah), the Jews just don't think Jesus was the Christ that was predicted. Christians did not invent the idea of the Christ (Messiah), many (most?) Jews believe in a Messiah (Christ)

Muslims, on the other hand, did totally invent by themselves the idea of a non Jewish prophet predicted by Old Testament. Both Jews and Christians agred that the prophet predicted by Old Testament would be Jewish, not some other nationality like Arabic.

You make up arbitrary rules yourself and then claim victory over application of those rules. That's not just blasphemous for Islam but blasphemous for Christianity as well.

What you accuse basics of doing, you are doing here. What basics says is standard Christian belief, so how exactly is what basics said blasphemous according ro Christianity? Show exaclty how it is, not just make a claim without providing any proof.

Islam denies the deity of Jesus, asserts he did not die on the cross, and claims the Quran as it is now comes from God, which it clearly does not, all which blasphemous to Christians.

That alone shows how you're trying to cling to points to create a case for yourself. Clearly, your own position is unable to stand on its own feet.

Basics position has successfully stood for 2000 years and longer than Islam and Muhammad have been around, and produced a religion that is more success than Islam and Muhammad. Islam and its beliefs have created a religion that managed to produce a pathetic 3 Nobel prize winners in science, and one of them was an Ahmaddiya which many Muslims don't regard as true Muslims, but those Muslims are wrong.

(The Ahmaddiyyas believe in the 5 pillars of Islam and the 6 basic Muslims beliefs, and Muhammad being the seal of the prophets, if not the last prophet itself. That 1.78 billion Muslims carn only produce 2 Nobel prize winners in science I think which position is more likely true. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...obel_laureates.

[basics]

Common Soldier,

It is said that the Old Testament is the New veiled and the New Testament the Old revealed and oh so true that is. The Jews never quite got it, expecting messias to be a military figure like David and some still believe that. The idea that Messias would be a servant rather than a warrior never crossed their minds with the exception of all them that God called to be righteous before Him. A true prophet of God was the most dangerous vocation to be given that seen in the fact that they were all killed by the very people to whom their message from God was given. Taking all else away from Jesus we find that He was indeed the heir to David's throne both through His adopted father Joseph and more impressively through Mary's line, why? Because there is no doubt that He was born of Mary. Any doubts only creep in if one dismisses the prophets whose message from God tells of something Supernatural concerning His birth. Indeed that throughout His ministry He spent more time looking back to the prophets than He did looking to the future, why? Obviously to correct what the Jews had missed from what the prophets said about Him. His main task was to preach the Kingdom not by storm, rather by love with some amazing signs and wonders knowing that He was sent to be like a Lamb crucified before the foundations of the world.

Was He crucified? There is no doubt that He was as recorded by the Romans and Jews alike, why even the piercing by the Centurian's spear was foretold. His burial site was covered by soldiers so that He stayed dead and buried, why? Because He foretold of His rising again after three days and the rulers wanted to make sure by hill or highwater that wouldn't happen. Three days later some of the women wanted to care more for His body but when they reached the tomb, it happened to be open and empty apart from an angel who confirmed His rising. By this time the guards in a panic back to the rulers so they weren't there when the women reached the empty tomb. Whilst obviously in complete confusion and bewilderment one of the women saw a Figure a little bit off and as she approached the Figure spoke and it was then that she saw it was Jesus. He told her where to assemble the disciples and left. When she did that both Peter and John raced to the tomb, John outrunning Peter to find the tomb empty. Later that same day when all were gathered together Jesus came in amongst them bearing the scars in His hands, feet and side for them to see and believe. Thomas the most unconvinced at touching Him fell to his knees crying out, " My Lord and my God." Jesus appeared to over four hundred people after that, talking and eating with many and after some time he gave them the great commision to go out into the world and proclaim the Gospel that was to save many right up to this very day.

Knowing that it is impossible for men to know God never mind love Him why does it surprise anyone that PointOfViewGun doesn't believe a word of it? The world doesn't believe it either and are Muslims not part of this world, yes, this world they want to dominate? There's a new world coming so get on board.

[Elendil 03]

So, let's put it this way: Is Christianity "the same religion" as "Judaism and Islam"? From a theological perspective it evidently isn't.

[conon394]

(The Ahmaddiyyas believe in the 5 pillars of Islam and the 6 basic Muslims beliefs, and Muhammad being the seal of the prophets, if not the last prophet itself. That 1.78 billion Muslims carn only produce 2 Nobel prize winners in science I think which position is more likely true. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...obel_laureates.

Cheap shot. How many years was anyone but a white, European (or decent) male the only likely choice. Come on Gandhi could not win one.

[Common Soldier]

Cheap shot. How many years was anyone but a white, European (or decent) male the only likely choice. Come on Gandhi could not win one.

True, but PointOfViewGun's points were equally cheap shots, so they deserve the same. But I would ask what were the great scientific discoveries made by Muslims before 1960 that would have been worthy to be considered for a Nobel prize? From the mid 18th to mid 20th century what great discoveries were made by Muslims?


PS - I count 7 Chinese Nobel prizez for Physics and 2 forChemistry and there are fewer Chinese than Muslims

[basics]

So, let's put it this way: Is Christianity "the same religion" as "Judaism and Islam"? From a theological perspective it evidently isn't.

Elendil 03,

Judaism is built on the Law and the prophets whilst Christianity is built on the fulfilment of these in Jesus Christ.

[Sagat]

This was clearly a bait thread from the beginning, and some of yall fell for it thinking you could have a logical discussion with OP.

[basics]

This was clearly a bait thread from the beginning, and some of yall fell for it thinking you could have a logical discussion with OP.

Sagat,

Yep, some of us are just gluttons for punishment.

[Elendil 03]

Christianity has little to do with the law of the Hebrew Bible. Apart from that, I was pointig out that the main difference between Christianity and Judaism (and the common denominator of the latter with Islam) is the view of God. The Holy Trinity is a theological construct that goes beyond pure monotheism as represented by these religions (and some heterodox Christian denominations).

[basics]

Elendil 03,

What separates the Christian from the Law of Moses is that Jesus Christ's blood took away anything the Law had on us. Does this mean that we can break the Law anytime we want? No, it doesn't, rather it means we have to stay within the Law because it is still God's Law binding in every aspect of it. So, must we live by the Law if we are born again? No, we live by Grace yet we respect the Law and in so doing we emulate our Saviour Jesus Christ.

[conon394]

Elendil 03,

What separates the Christian from the Law of Moses is that Jesus Christ's blood took away anything the Law had on us. Does this mean that we can break the Law anytime we want? No, it doesn't, rather it means we have to stay within the Law because it is still God's Law binding in every aspect of it. So, must we live by the Law if we are born again? No, we live by Grace yet we respect the Law and in so doing we emulate our Saviour Jesus Christ.

I will try that bit of sophistry out next I am pulled over by the cops. "Yes officer I respect the law but feel I can ignore portions of it that are not convenient for me now after my neoplatonic friends have given it a revision"

[Elendil 03]

But Christians do not practice the Mosaic Law, which contradicts Psalms 111:7-8 and 119:89, Jeremiah 23:35 and many other statements from the OT, as well as Jesus's own words in Matthew 5:17-18. Christianity claims to follow the OT's commandments in spirit rather than literally, but this doesn't sound right. It may be true that the Pharisees neglected the message behind them (especially in inter-human relations, as confirmed even by the Talmud), but this does not mean you're allowed to ditch the commandments, simply because you can still behave according to the intention behind them.

[basics]

But Christians do not practice the Mosaic Law, which contradicts Psalms 111:7-8 and 119:89, Jeremiah 23:35 and many other statements from the OT, as well as Jesus's own words in Matthew 5:17-18. Christianity claims to follow the OT's commandments in spirit rather than literally, but this doesn't sound right. It may be true that the Pharisees neglected the message behind them (especially in inter-human relations, as confirmed even by the Talmud), but this does not mean you're allowed to ditch the commandments, simply because you can still behave according to the intention behind them.

Elendil 03,

You are quite right in that a born again Christian cannot ignore the commandments of God, why? Because now being part of God's family in Christ Jesus and just as He kept the Law, so must we. The only discipline Jesus added to the Ten was that the second most important was to " Love thy neighbour as thyself." The secondary laws concerning eating and living in general were superceded when the Gentiles were brought into the church and so we find today only certain sects of the Jews still adhere to the original orders for life. The reason that it is believed that the Law is not now binding to believers is because Jesus Christ took its effect away by dying in our places for our sins meaning the Law can never condemn us again. So can we willfully sin from conversion on? Not willfully but yes we will sin but the blood of Christ covered even those. So, as Paul writes we run the race not against other Christians but against the evil one who will do everything possible to make us sin.

[conon394]

So can we willfully sin from conversion on? Not willfully but yes we will sin but the blood of Christ covered even those. So, as Paul writes we run the race not against other Christians but against the evil one who will do everything possible to make us sin.

That remains sophism.

[Elendil 03]

OK, so Jesus's death saved the future converts from being punished for their sins. Why does this mean that Christians may disregard the law to begin with? The new covenant mentioned in Jeremiah 31:31 only becomes a thing after the People of Israel have been rallied (Jer 31:23), which didn't happen until now, as far as I can tell.
I don't repudiate Christianity, but its claims don't make sense to me.

By the way, the "Love thy Neighbour as thyself" thing wasn't "added" by Jesus, but comes from Leviticus 19:18. That being said, the Golden Rule exists in nearly every human culture. In several instances, it appears way before the codification of the Hebrew Bible.

[basics]

Elendil 03,

Jesus' blood washed away the past, present and future sins of all them that He died for. Now whether we as Gentiles were under the Law or a Law these Laws condemned us in the eyes of God just the Law applied to the Jews. If anyone could keep them all the days of their lives heaven's door was open to them, but none, not one ever could apart from the God/man Who came among us and it's because of His purety that He was the perfect sacrifice for our sin. By His death for His people the Law could no longer condemn them and so they were free from it. Did it mean they could continue to sin? Absolutely not for wilfull sinning is quite wrong and the chastisement of God falls on them that do it. However as already said unintentional sinning has been covered by the blood of the Lamb.

The New Covenant as I see it is what Jesus declared when He broke bread and drank wine at the feast with His disciples saying as he broke bread, " This is my body which is given for you.....This is the blood of the New Covenant...." As He shed His blood on that cross not many hours later the New Covenant came into effect and the wonder of it is that in doing so He covered the sins of all them whom God gave an account to as well as them living and all them yet to be born. Yes from righteous Abel all the way to Jesus all those men and women that were accounted righteous by God had there sins also taken away.

I don't know whether you've noticed that all Jesus teachings were from the Old Covenant scrolls it follows as these were His Bible He would quote to verify His teachings. That's the wonder of both Testaments for in them we find the double witness for the authenticity of God pressing home a point. Yes it's a great saying that we all like to think we do but alas it isn't always kept and so if we try and fail in any part of it, that's sin in God's eyes.

[swabian]

Elendil 03,

Jesus' blood washed away the past, present and future sins of all them that He died for. Now whether we as Gentiles were under the Law or a Law these Laws condemned us in the eyes of God just the Law applied to the Jews. If anyone could keep them all the days of their lives heaven's door was open to them, but none, not one ever could apart from the God/man Who came among us and it's because of His purety that He was the perfect sacrifice for our sin. By His death for His people the Law could no longer condemn them and so they were free from it. Did it mean they could continue to sin? Absolutely not for wilfull sinning is quite wrong and the chastisement of God falls on them that do it. However as already said unintentional sinning has been covered by the blood of the Lamb.

The New Covenant as I see it is what Jesus declared when He broke bread and drank wine at the feast with His disciples saying as he broke bread, " This is my body which is given for you.....This is the blood of the New Covenant...." As He shed His blood on that cross not many hours later the New Covenant came into effect and the wonder of it is that in doing so He covered the sins of all them whom God gave an account to as well as them living and all them yet to be born. Yes from righteous Abel all the way to Jesus all those men and women that were accounted righteous by God had there sins also taken away.

I don't know whether you've noticed that all Jesus teachings were from the Old Covenant scrolls it follows as these were His Bible He would quote to verify His teachings. That's the wonder of both Testaments for in them we find the double witness for the authenticity of God pressing home a point. Yes it's a great saying that we all like to think we do but alas it isn't always kept and so if we try and fail in any part of it, that's sin in God's eyes.

We are simply forced to "forgive" our "sinners" eventually. Jesus or not. It is only easy to forgive, because it is so much harder to retaliate in a way that pacifies things in ones' own interests. If you look deep down inside yourself, you will find it very easy to retaliate.

If God is with those who always forgive, he is with everything and with everyone and thus dissolves into trivial sophistry.

[basics]

We are simply forced to "forgive" our "sinners" eventually. Jesus or not. It is only easy to forgive, because it is so much harder to retaliate in a way that pacifies things in ones' own interests. If you look deep down inside yourself, you will find it very easy to retaliate.

If God is with those who always forgive, he is with everything and with everyone and thus dissolves into trivial sophistry.

swabian,

The thing is about forgiveness that humans find very hard to do and God directs us by putting it this way. We not only have to forgive but actually forget completely the offence as well as the offender. People say they forgive but nonetheless they retain in their memories record of them so they never quite go away. The good thing is that with God's Spirit in us we can overturn our nature to make a good attempt at forgiving from the heart.